Angela Carella: Stamford ethics board still finding its way

Published 10:26 pm, Tuesday, October 8, 2013

Since 2010 Stamford officials and employees have slammed each other with ethics charges, rocking City Hall.

They have accused each other of harassment, slander and unscrupulously using their influence to attack those with whom they disagree.

The fallout has not been good for Stamford. It has left taxpayers feeling cynical as they have had to cover hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees for city officials.

It has left earnest elected officials thinking twice before examining the actions of city employees for fear they will be accused of ethics violations and have to hire attorneys to defend themselves.

High-ranking city officials have questioned the motives behind the charges, saying that political opponents used the ethics code to bash each other.

Even the city's Board of Ethics, which had been dormant for a decade before the onslaught of 2010, was accused of ineffectiveness and bias.

The ethics code itself came under fire. Some said it is too murky, too broad, perhaps incomplete. "My advice to you would be to clearly define what an ethical violation is and what it is not," the former city legal director told a Board of Representatives committee that was discussing the ethics code in 2011.

The code was never put to a full test because all of the ethics charges filed since 2010 were withdrawn or dismissed.

This year, though, the Board of Representatives clarified the code, and now the latest ethics charge may test it.

The ethics board's investigative panel has found probable cause that the code was violated in a case brought by former Board of Finance Chairman Joe Tarzia against Mary Lou Rinaldi, who has been a member of the finance board for 18 years.

The Board of Ethics met on the matter Monday night, but was not ready to take it up. It appears that questions remain about how Stamford's ethics board is supposed to work.

Under the rules, the three-member investigative panel interviews the parties involved in the complaint and brings its finding to the rest of the ethics board. If the investigative panel finds probable cause, the members try the case in public before the ethics board's three-member hearing panel.

During Monday's meeting, ethics board Chairwoman Cheryl Bader asked Daniel Sanchez of the investigative panel for his written report.

Sanchez explained that the panel deliberately did not write a report of its findings to ensure that the ethics board members who will weigh the case are not prejudiced for or against either side once hearings are under way.

"Do we need a report to proceed?" Bader asked during the meeting. "We're in uncharted territory. There are not many times we've had to commence hearings."

But Rinaldi's attorney, James Sconzo, asked how he can structure her defense if he can't see the information gathered by the investigative panel.

"I'm surprised there is uncertainty over the procedure," Sconzo said. "I'm surprised to hear that the investigative panel has interviewed witnesses. That's why there's a need for a report."

Sanchez said the investigative panel had questions while it was working and asked the city for legal counsel. The city OK'd the panel to hire an attorney, and the panel chose Tom Cassone, who was Stamford's legal director under former Mayor Dannel Malloy, now governor.

Besides the question of whether the investigative panel must write a report of its findings, and whether that report is public, there were questions about when the three-year statute of limitations kicks in on Tarzia's complaint, which is based on emails from 2010, and whether the investigative panel properly requested an extension to do its work.

On Tuesday Legal Affairs Director Joseph Capalbo said he determined that it would be better for the ethics board's investigative panel to hire outside counsel, and for the hearing panel, which requested legal counsel Tuesday, to be represented by his office.

It was so his office "would not potentially be conflicted out later on, when it goes to the hearing panel," Capalbo said. "Then we could represent the hearing panel without the potential for conflict of interest. The hearing panel has to determine on the merits whether there was a violation."

Tarzia, who is no longer in office, said during the meeting that so far he is representing himself. Capalbo said Rinaldi, a sitting member of the Board of Finance, is covering Sconzo's fees.

"She pays on her own until some conclusion is reached, then the city will reimburse her if no violation of the ethics code is found, and not reimburse her if a violation is found," Capalbo said.

The amended ethics code has made that clear, Capalbo said, but on other matters the course for considering ethics charges in Stamford still must be mapped out. His office is researching the questions that arose at Monday's meeting, Capalbo said.

"This process has to be set up and established so it is structured properly, so it has credibility and finality," he said.